Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Either that, or you're not listening.
And guess which one I think it is?
Kind is genus.
I can't make it any simpler.
Maybe that's why you don't understand?
Science has a way of messing things up.
Then don't worry about it.
The problem with the definition is the built-in assumption of ancestors and descendants. There's circular reasoning going on: "We call this fossil 'transitional' between A and C, because we already assume there was a transition between A and C. And why do we assume there was a transition? Because we have this fossil..."The same as Wikipedia's: 'A transitional fossil is any fossilised remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil. Later in the same paragraph, the article explains that 'Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups'.
That model makes sense as far as it goes, but I don't see the relevance to what we're talking about here. It could explain geographic distribution of different critters, but how does it explain the lack of continuous linkage (for lack of a better term) in any given place?They are, and, so far as I understand it, that is the whole point of the allopatric speciation model. Fossils are preserved from the large non-isolated central populations, but because these populations are not the source of new species, their fossil record is one of evolutionary stasis. This, again, is what is observed; for the most part the fossil record, which is the record of the large non-isolated populations, shows little or no change in an individual species or genus from its first appearance to its extinction.
Organisms have binomials.But you subsequently tried to argue that "kind" is based on organisms that can reproduce.
The problem with the definition is the built-in assumption of ancestors and descendants. There's circular reasoning going on: "We call this fossil 'transitional' between A and C, because we already assume there was a transition between A and C. And why do we assume there was a transition? Because we have this fossil..."
The problem with the definition is the built-in assumption of ancestors and descendants.
That model makes sense as far as it goes, but I don't see the relevance to what we're talking about here. It could explain geographic distribution of different critters, but how does it explain the lack of continuous linkage (for lack of a better term) in any given place?
Either the B exists between A and C or it doesn't. It has nothing to do with assumptions, its just a matter of if something exists or not.
For example, in the fish to amphibian transition. Either tiktaalik exists or it doesnt. Nobody assumes it to be a transition, it simply is because it contains both fish and amphibian traits. ie it has scales like a fish and fins like a fish, but its head is flat like a salamander and it has bulky shoulders, an unfused skull and rotating wrists.
We call it transitional because it morphologically and temporally is a link between A and C.
Who predicted tiktaalik, and when?And nobody assumed that tiktaalik existed. Its called a prediction. If A transitioned into C then one might predict that B exists. And not only that but it can be disproven to be a transitional as well, for example if C is found before A, then it would break the chain.
But in the case of the fish to tetrapod transition, it falls in order, A B and C, fish to amphibian without C coming before A. Therefore the transition and predictions stand.
Yes of course, organisms reproduce things of their own kind. They don't produce, they can only re-produce.How is that a "built-in" assumption? Do you not think that organisms reproduce?
You should give an example of what you think is a lack of linkage, that way the question may be addressed, directly.
Yes of course, organisms reproduce things of their own kind. They don't produce, they can only re-produce.
I did not say there were no such thing as ancestors and descendants, so I'm not sure what your point is.The point of course is that there is no assumptions about ancestors or descendants. We know that organisms reproduce.
So do we.The point of course is that there is no assumptions about ancestors or descendants. We know that organisms reproduce.
It's a problem of taxonomy. Humans, and watermelons, and clouds, all have water in them. What does that actually tell us about the relationship between these things? Nothing, except that we all contain water.
You're doing the same thing as the Wiki definition - making an assertion. As I pointed out above, being morphologically related gives us no information about a possible temporal relationship.
Who predicted tiktaalik, and when?
I did not say there were no such thing as ancestors and descendants, so I'm not sure what your point is.
The problem with the definition is the built-in assumption of ancestors and descendants. There's circular reasoning going on: "We call this fossil 'transitional' between A and C, because we already assume there was a transition between A and C. And why do we assume there was a transition? Because we have this fossil..."
Because they're bad at it. Nobody has ever demonstrated what creationists keep claiming. Hence, why it seems every creationist has their own definition of what a "kind" is. And in some cases, more than one definition.
The funny part is where evolutionists demand creationists prove the biological boundaries exist
while simultaneously demanding acceptance (without any proof) that NO boundaries exist....
To an evolutionist, the default 'reasonable' position is that nature has the intrinsic power to organize the same common substance into both a mushroom and a horse. How this magical-thinking is regarded as common wisdom today is truly astounding.
No evidence for common descent? LOL
Only if you reject the findings of modern science.
But replace the word "nature" with invisible and undetectable supernatural deity and it makes more sense?
Oh.. did a bacteria do something interesting with a broken enzyme again? Can't wait to learn how this proves a fish can turn into a giraffe, if only given enough time and the right environment....
Does it make you feel better to hide your god behind a word?
Not proof, just evidence, any evidence. But of course there is none, in fact all the evidence we have points to common descent.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?